Chapter 21: The Collapse and Recovery of Europe (1914-1970s)

Though both World War I and World War II brought depression, death, and defeat, women were given more rights in the result of the war. It may seem hard to believe, but there can be some good in the result of war…besides winning against the opponent.

During the “Great” War, many men were sent to fight in the war. Because of this, the women were sort of forced into work. “In factories, women replaced the men who had left for the battlefront, while labor unions agreed to suspend strikes and accept sacrifices for the common good (630).” As the caption for the image on page 630 mentions, women were indirectly contributing to the war like manufacturing war munitions. After the Great War, women continued to be “free”. Young women showed up at nightclubs engaging in dancing, drinking and smoking. They cut their hairs shorter than what was the norm, and wore more revealing clothing. Probably the most important part however, is that women gained the right to vote. Though the Great War was not so great (positively), without the occurrence of this war, I would not have the right to vote.

[Why was World War I referenced as the “Great” War? The word great, I think, denotes positivity, as a synonym for awesome…the “Awesome War”.]

The section about the Great Depression kind of scared me, just because the situation during this time is similar to what is going on today. This contributes to the infamous quote about how history tends to repeat itself. Of course, I hope for the betterment of the economy, but I could not but help notice the similarities. Right now, the unemployment rate in the United States is roughly about 10 percent. According to the graph on page 635, the highest rate of unemployment during the Great Depression was between 1932-1933 around 30%. “Vacant factories, soup kitchens, bread lines, shanytowns, and beggars came to symbolize the human reality of this economic disaster.” It’s rough knowing that the current situation is much better today. Many people have been laid off, business are going out of business, and people cannot afford as much as could/used to. It’s funny though, I admit, my spending habits are still the same, but maybe it is because I haven’t been directly affected.

Chapter 20: Colonial Encounters

Wooooooow. Talk about power hungry. As if the takeover of the Americas wasn’t enough in the 16^th and 17^th century, a second wave of European conquests occurred between 1750s and 1900s. Though the later race involved different competitors and different countries of interests, the theme of power and colonial rule still parallel.

The text hardly speaks of the Asian countries of colonial empiricism, but instead that the Europeans sought more of the African countries. Map 20.2’s caption states that by the early 1900s, all the different parts of Africa were conquered by different European countries: France, Britain, Germany, Italy, among others.

On page 594, under Under European Rule, it says, “In many places, incorporation into European colonial empires was a traumatic experience. Especially for small-scale societies, the loss of life, homes, cattle, crops, and land could be devastating.” Could be? In what ways would it not be devastating? How can losing your home and land be a good thing? The most disturbing part of this chapter is the image on page 600. The young boys have lost their hands, not as a direct effect of forced labor, but as a crude punishment for not obtaining an abundance of materials that the Europeans ordered. They have no footwear; the boy on the left doesn’t even have a shirt on. It seems like the body of the boy on the left has developed improperly, which could have been an effect of the forced labor he was put through.

It is hard to believe, but some good did result from these colonial encounters. One of these benefits was education. More opportunities of literacy were available via missionary and government schools. And these opportunities gave access to actual jobs, like government bureaucracies and business firms, versus the horridness forced labor. Having the abilities to read and write gave people higher social statuses compared to those that were not literate.

The textbook implies that the natives became literate in the European languages, French, or English. Why hadn’t the Westerners also encouraged literacy of native African languages? Also, what if the reverse occurred in terms of colonial rule: What if it had been the Africans and Asians who colonized the European countries? Would Europeans be speaking Asian and/or African languages? Now that would be interesting. English is spoken almost everywhere, like a universal language. It may not be the primary language for every country, but when translations are given in foreign countries, an English one is most likely to be given. I don’t think you can expect a Japanese translation in an African country (unless of course, there is a Japanese tourist attraction). With that said, imagine if the “universal language” was Swahili? Or Vietnamese? Or Arabic?